Proposition 8 Backlash: What's Wrong with Discriminating Against Those Who Want to Discriminate?

After reading an article in the Los Angeles Times today about whether there should be "boycotts, blacklists, firing or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8," it didn't take more than a moment for me to come up with a response: Why the hell not?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this issue, as no one I've heard or read has called for rounding the bastards up and putting them in concentration camps, or doing them physical harm or taking away their civil rights. Most of the outrage I've witnessed deals with not wanting to associate on a professional level with people who promote a political objective to interfere with a person's right to have the same joy in their lives that the majority of Americans have.

Most occupational situations are at will, which means that, barring a violation of no-nos prohibited by government statute, many of us can be fired just like that. It can be a simple fact that the boss doesn't like us or finds our work habits, even when successful, not to his liking.

Why then should it surprise us that when people publicly support a statute limiting the rights of a fellow human being, some of those human beings and their supporters might rise up and say, "Well, we can't stop you from voting the way you have, but we're sure not going to make it profitable for you or desire your presence in our work premises anymore."

We liberals tend to bend over backwards to appear fair and say, "Well, is this stance any different than a boycott of companies that promote gay rights?" This is an apples and oranges point of view, because in the case just stated it is a stance taken by people who want to perpetuate inequality and discrimination. These people are intruding in the lives of others -- people who have no effect at all on the hate mongers, except a presumed disturbance of the bigoted lifestyle they want to maintain.

On the other hand, those who rise up against the forces who want to impose their religious and so-called moral beliefs on the public at large and thus prevent loving couples from legally sanctifying their union, are in effect mimicking Paddy Chayefsky's famous words from Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

They're not throwing stones at the contributors' cars or burning their houses and certainly shouldn't be. However, taking a stand against those who discriminate is moral, legitimate and the correct stance to take. Just as the blacks boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama city buses when they were only permitted to ride in the rear sections.

This is not just a question of not liking a person's politics. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, most of the issues in disagreement involve economics or our foreign policy. And although I admit to being disappointed when one of my favorites doesn't hew to my political philosophy, I can get over it if I can respect him or her as a decent citizen of our planet.

But when hate or smugness affects our neighbor's quality of life and places him or her on a pedestal below, it deprives that person of the chance to be happy and fulfilled. It bespeaks a policy that says "I'm better than you are, and since I have the votes I'm going to prove it with the force of law."

People with that attitude should be punished in a manner that they'll well understand. They must suffer, not with physical torture or incarceration, but with economic retribution, which is the most civilized and fairly meted out solution. Why should those whom they have hurt help them prosper and why should those who are equally offended do likewise? Let these prejudiced souls work and interact with those whose views share their desires to hurt others. If this is blacklisting of a sort then it's of a stripe I can support, as I have little use for those who interfere with the well-being and happiness of their fellow men and women.

Comments

[abbeyroad]

and do you have any evidence to the contrary ?

[Michale32086]

Common sense, strong circumstantial evidence and almost a quarter century as an LEO and an FSO...

You???

Michale......

[abbeyroad]

of course it needs to be condemned.

it puts a black mark on the gay community.
but maybe that was the intent all along ...... ?

[Michale32086]

}}}}
of course it needs to be condemned.
{{{{

And yet....

{chirp} {chirp} {chirp}

}}}}
it puts a black mark on the gay community.
{{{{

Agreed...

}}}}
but maybe that was the intent all along ...... ?
{{{{

If you have ANY evidence to back it up, beyond wishful thinking, well...

"I am all ears"
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

Michale.....

[i approve this message]

do you know who sent the white powder? evidence please...

[i approve this message]

of course, the person(s) who perpetrated this crime should be swiftly apprehended and brought to justice

[abbeyroad]

i've said this before, and i'll say it again:

there is no proof that the white powder sent to the temples were sent by a gay person or group.

the powder could have been sent by other mormons to SET UP the gay community.
it's a move i certainly wouldn't put past the LDS.
they've always enjoyed being portrayed as "the victim".

[Michale32086]

Regardless of WHO sent it, the acts NEED to be condemned.

Agreed??

And as MUCH energy needs to be put into THAT condemnation as is put into condemning those who support Prop 8..

Anything less is tacit approval for the acts..

Michale.....

[MajorKong]

Um, no actually. It's an apples to oranges comparison. One is a criminal matter, the other is a political matter.

[Michale32086]

@HawaiiBill

}}}}
LeftRight just condemned it...and here is number two. I hadn't even heard about it until this thread. Anyone doing that sort of thing is not participating in political dialogue, they are committing terrorism and should be found and arrested. And I haven't heard anyone condoning it.
{{{{

"silence gives assent"

You have condemned it. LeftRight has condemned it. I have condemned it. One other person in another commentary condemned it when I brought it up..

That's 5...

How many commentaries here on HuffPo have been devoted to condemning the passage of Prop 8 and condemning those who voted for it? Dozens?? Hundreds???

How many commentaries here on HuffPo have been devoted to condemning the pseudo terrorist acts committed against the churches who supported Prop 8?? Zero. Zilch.. Nada.. None..

How many commentaries here on HuffPo have even MENTIONED these perverse, moronic and pathetic acts?? Zero. Zilch.. Nada.. None.

Do the math...

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

But, again, to be fair Michale, out of all of us who condemned it, we all know about it because you brought it up. I DID NOT KNOW about it until then, and I'm more plugged into the news than most..... Granted, I'm sure that there are some who knew about it and didn't condemn it, but it's more likely that most didn't KNOW about it!

[RJVegas]

I'm convinced that "the majority" in the vote on Prop 8 were voting so that, in their own minds, "I'm better than THOSE people and God wouldn't like it if I voted to allow THEM to marry. I don't want to screw up any chances for me to get into Heaven! See, aren't I a good Christian?" It reminds me of how so many elderly Americans send money to the televangelists trying desperately to buy their way into Heaven before they die

I say boycott to your hearts content! I was taught is Sunday school "God is love." Well, I guess we know who represents hate now, don't we?

[Tody62]

1)So can those people who supported prop. 8 fire and blacklist those who didn't?
2) I am amazed that people who claim to support diversity and tolerance don't tolerate ideas diverse from there own.
3)Oh and I'm also sure that the right of men to marry men is just what brave african americans were talking about when thay sat down at the lunch counter.
Discuss

[coolmaiden]

Responses to your poor arguments:
1. If they are employers, they can fire whomever they want. No one is telling them how to run their business or whom to hire.
2. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Support ideas that we despise? We understand there are people with other beliefs. We absolutely do not have to line their pockets, for goodness' sake!
3. Were you one of the brave people who sat at the lunch counters? If not, you really shouldn't guess as to what they were thinking. Being gay is not exclusive to Caucasians.

[carsntrucks]

In response to your counter-arguments

1. Except those who turn around and support the Employee Non-Discrimination Act because they feel firing someone based on sexual orientation is wrong and they want it to be a felony.

2. How about not making straw man arguments? He said the same people who want to be considered diverse and tolerant of other people...aren't all that tolerant and diverse when it comes to dissent. They're actually quite homogeneous in that way, which goes against their alleged world view that no one should be left out for being different.

3. But sexual orientation being a primary issue is pretty much exclusive to Caucasians, because blacks have always had to contend with being black first, and their orientation second. It's the same reason so many black women to this day don't consider themselves feminists.

[LeftRight]

"1)So can those people who supported prop. 8 fire and blacklist those who didn't?"

If they own a business and they can fire the person for cause (or in some states for any reason at all) then yes, they can.

"2) I am amazed that people who claim to support diversity and tolerance don't tolerate ideas diverse from there own. "

The difference is that I'm not asking you to live like I believe. You don't like Gay Marriage, FINE, don't get married to a person of the same gender! On the other hand, you ARE insisting that *I* live like YOU believe!

"3)Oh and I'm also sure that the right of men to marry men is just what brave african americans were talking about when thay sat down at the lunch counter."

They weren't doing that specifically, but they DID recognize that a loss of civil rights for one is simply the stepping stone for a loss of civil rights for ALL. Which means that if the two groups were both fighting for their rights at the same time, they would be standing TOGETHER to do it!

[Michale32086]

I think the point that is trying to be made is that, if one group of people demands tolerance from another group of people, then it behooves the first group to show tolerance and try to understand why the second group is NOT showing tolerance.

That is what being a liberal is all about..

The very CORE of being a liberal is tolerance.

And committing acts of violence and pseudo-terrorism is NOT showing tolerance...

Michale.....

[BeeOplentee]

As long as they don't cast lustful glances on God's little children, most people don't care what gay folks do secretly in their lives. But to call it "marriage"? Nah!

[coolmaiden]

Can we boycott YOU?

[Michale32086]

}}}}
They're not throwing stones at the contributors' cars or burning their houses and certainly shouldn't be.
{{{{

No, but they ARE committing pseudo-terrorism by sending white powder to churches...

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Cite this please, cause this is the first that I've heard about it?

[Michale32086]

Google "white powder" churches

You'll get a listing that tells all about it..

Michale.....

[coolmaiden]

I sure will miss my favorite fish and chips during Lent at the Knights of Columbus. Small price to pay for equality. I'll make my own!

[abbeyroad]

i'll tell you who's next:

ladies -- your uteruses had better be on guard.
because the religious right is coming after them next.

[GomezAdams]

If Prop 8 is allowed to stand, we will have hit rock bottom. Republicans will vote to take an individual Civil Rights away piecemeal...

Who's next?

[abbeyroad]

brilliantly said.

thanks WestCoastBuckeye.

[WestCoastBuckeye]

I'll admit I'm not the brightest guy in the room, but it all seems pretty damn simple to me:

I know which big businesses supported Prop. 8. I known which local businesses supported Prop. 8. I know which senior-level employees of businesses supported Prop. 8.

Those people and those businesses will not receive my money. It's the only way I can know I won't be inadvertently, financially supporting bigots and causes of social discrimination.

Grouping pro-Prop. 8 counties, age groups, ethnic voters, or religious people together, as some commenter here suggested, is idiotic.

I won't refuse to shop in Orange or San Diego counties because those counties largely voted yes on 8. I refuse to support businesses in Orange and San Diego counties that I know financially supported Prop. 8.

I won't refuse to shop in businesses run by old people. I'll refuse to shop at businesses run by old people who I know financed Prop. 8.

I won't refuse to shop Mormon-owned businesses ... just those owned by Mormons who financially supported Prop. 8.

I'm a simpleton, I know.

[billyjames]

During the Red-baiting before, during and after the McCarthy era, many writers and actors were blacklisted. Some writers got by with pseudonyms, some actors and directors left the country to get work, most died broke.

Is there a difference here? I'm not sure.

[Michael Russnow - Huffpost Blogger]

People think that fighting back in the manner I have endorsed is wrong in all instances. They cite horrendous instances wherein severe economic distress was inflicted against those who differed politically.

The key difference is that the examples mentioned invariably bring up those who venally condemned people simply for having alternative political viewpoints as opposed to the instance discussed in my article whereby the differing political philosophies are designed to inflict harm or emotional injury on a group of our citizenry.

That is the key difference. Feel free to have whatever political belief you choose without consequence unless your convictions denigrate other human beings. In that case don't be surprised if you are condemned with the most effective legal means possible, and economic distress is the most potent weapon.

By the way, do you also condemn the Blacks who boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama bus company, which to its mind was simply expressing the belief that Blacks ought to sit in the back of the bus? Or does the right of a gay person to seek the same civil rights as heterosexual people not warrant similar behavior?

[WestCoastBuckeye]

Any comparison of the blacklists of the Red Scare to boycotts against those who funded the Prop. 8 campaign is beyond silly.

McCarthy's targets were attacked because they were ACCUSED of having a different political ideology, targeted for even being ACCUSED of being a Communist. They were attacked based on beliefs of the way the country should be run, blacklisted/boycotted to keep those views from influencing the public at large. It didn't matter if the ACCUSATIONS were true.

The other group (Prop. 8 donors) is being attacked, not because of any accusation, or supposed ideology, or fear of how that group might influence society, but BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE. There's no government influence behind this blacklist/boycott. The only influence is from those they have attacked, and the rest of us who find them guilty of bigotry.

They're guilty of donating money to a proposition that divides our state, calls for discrimination, and directly attacks a minority segment of the state's population. Their politics mean nothing (you've heard of Log Cabin Republicans, right?). I, and other anti-Prop. 8 people, don't care if the donors are Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Socialists or Anarchists. The people financially targeted in this boycott are being financially targeted for THEIR EXPLICIT, BOLD-FACED FINANCIAL SUPPORT for an attack against a minority segment of the American population. Action. Reaction.

Most every blacklist victim during the Red Scare didn't volunteer to put their name on a list.

Every Prop. 8 donor did.

[abbeyroad]

it's not about "persuading" them.
it's about not giving a dime of our money to the people who hate who we are.
they think we're sinners. so why should they take money from a sinner, right ?

i'm 110% for this boycott. it's the absolutely right thing to do.

i found out that the owner of the el pollo loco in silverlake donated a big chunk to yes on 8.
i used to go there 3 times a week (i never even had to place my order - they knew what i wanted).
well, no more business from me. and it feels GOOD.

i also just learned that the president of urban outfitters, free people and anthropologie made a huge donation (he's also buddies with rick santorum). bye bye urban outfitters. forever.

but i think the most important boycott of all is to NEVER spend a dime in UTAH
or do business with BENEFICIAL INSURANCE (mormon owned).

we tried to play nice. but i guess it's true what they say: nice guys always finish last.

[sclucie]

that makes a lot of sense - especially for the gay-owned businesses in utah - like many of the businesses in park city. you may also want to boycott riverside county (>60% pro, which includes palm springs) san diego county (>60% pro, also higest mormon pop in calif), orange county (.60% vote, includes laguna), new york (enormous catholic population - group which started prop 8), italy (same) spain (same), mexico, and all of south america.

you also might want to consider boycotting whatever states voted against gay marriage, and the cities that house the idiots who ran the opposition to prop 8. i'd also boycott hollywood. major celebrities gave $100,000. do you think the multi-millionaires could afford that?

you need to also boycott all people over the age of 65.

[M1]

There exists a list so we can be very precise.